Posted - 2017.01.06 13:43:10 -
[33] - Quote
You keep using that word again.I do not think it means what you think it does.

This is not minecraft. This is not WoW.This is not Hello Kitty in Space... yet.

CCP determines what griefing is in their game. Not you. Not me.

You consent to PVP by undocking. It's implicit. Someone can do you harm if they wish to. No space knights honorably duelling here, just back alley knife fights and bar-room brawls.Fair fights only happen by accident generally.

So I was thinking of picking up EVE again after a few months off. The corp got chased out of null sec after someone dropped a catical l in our space and we had no chance against them guys. Dam shame, I was enjoying it out there.

So before I come back, has the Alpha clone thing just made it easier for griefers to pester casual players?

If it is free to create a toon and go mess with people, and that is your thing, it seems like a no brainier.

It almost seems like every time they do an expansion it just makes it easier for the griefers to mess with people.

You got chased out of Null because someone dropped a Citadel and you could not remove it but your actual question is if Alpha Accounts are a problem? OK...

Not in my experience. I do mostly WH exploration at the moment and I can tell who is an Alpha player because they have no cloaks. Most of the time they leave the system when they see me or my probes on d-scan. Perhaps there are less relic sites now because more explores are around. If I think hacking isnGGVt worth the effort anymore because to much alphas daytrip into WH space I can switch form explorer to exploder anytime.

My only only highsec encounter with an Alpha-Player was a Gnosis that tried to shot down my Bader after I looted the remains of a marauder. The DPS was so anemic and his ship so slow that I just crawled out of point range and got away while chatting with him in local. Saw the same guy in a Cane a few weeks later and greeted him with "welcome to Omega, you won't regret it." He answered that he didnGGVt.

CanGGVt say much about low-sec and null-sec because I canGGVt really tell who is an alpha and who is just sitting in an expandable ship. But most pilots are older than Ascension so I would say it is safe to assume that there are not enough Alphas in low and null-sec to make much of a difference.

If you wanted to grief people with a low skill character you could use the trail before Ascension, only thing that changed is that you donGGVt have to make a new one every 3 weeks. The only increase I saw was even more scams at hubs, but who cares? It is less the pilot or your GG#nameGG% that is at stake when you go miner bumping anyway GGt it is your time.

EVE is 14 years old in a few weeks. It may be time to come to terms with the fact that non consensual PvP is part of the game.

I did try to avoid a "dictionary war", but it seems it was too much to hope for :(

This is just another bit of "PR" to try to obscure griefing behind normal game activities.

"Non-consensual PvP" and "griefing" are not synonyms. There are plenty of occasions for Non-consensual PvP that any EVE player recognizes as good behavior. For example:

Attacking or defending "owned" space

Attacking a freighter with a high-value load in order to make a fat profit from looting the wreck

A preemptive attack on a blackmailer or pirate

Faction War

...

Actually the first item in that list, being a core design principle and distinguishing characteristic of EVE, is enough on its own.

You missed out the most important reason and the only one that really matters : Because it's fun.

Blowing people up is fun, not just when it's consensual. A consensual fight is fun because you get to test your fit / ship against the other person's fit / ship, and you can also adjust aspects of the fight for training (and fun) purposes. A non-consensual fight is also fun, for the reasons listed above but also for more than just that. The non-consensual fight involves tracking, research and requires the aggressor to engineer the correct situation. The flip side is that the defender can also employ all kinds of tricks to avoid the dangerous situation coming to pass (fit a tank, take a different route or adjust activities for example).

You didn't answer my Chess analogy earlier on, i can only assume because it doesn't fit with your "waaaaah nasty griefers" monologue.

You can't really talk about "tells" and other such psychology since you quite clearly don't understand the subject matter. CCP uses various grief tactics you've spoken about to actively promote the game, so please tell us more about "being a core design principle and distinguishing characteristic of EVE".

EVE is 14 years old in a few weeks. It may be time to come to terms with the fact that non consensual PvP is part of the game.

I did try to avoid a "dictionary war", but it seems it was too much to hope for :(

This is just another bit of "PR" to try to obscure griefing behind normal game activities.

"Non-consensual PvP" and "griefing" are not synonyms. There are plenty of occasions for Non-consensual PvP that any EVE player recognizes as good behavior. For example:

Attacking or defending "owned" space

Attacking a freighter with a high-value load in order to make a fat profit from looting the wreck

A preemptive attack on a blackmailer or pirate

Faction War

...

Actually the first item in that list, being a core design principle and distinguishing characteristic of EVE, is enough on its own.

I might remind you that this discussion is in context of the op alluding to being "griefed" out of his nullsec space.

You got that wrong, he said nothing about being griefed out of null sec just that his corp was unable to keep their space, then his question was did Alpha clones make it easier for griefers and in my opinion the answer to that is no. Are you turning into a full on HTFU type who only reads what he thinks he reads?

When the going gets tough the Gankers get their CSM rep to change mechanics in their favour.

EVE is 14 years old in a few weeks. It may be time to come to terms with the fact that non consensual PvP is part of the game.

I did try to avoid a "dictionary war", but it seems it was too much to hope for :(

This is just another bit of "PR" to try to obscure griefing behind normal game activities.

"Non-consensual PvP" and "griefing" are not synonyms. There are plenty of occasions for Non-consensual PvP that any EVE player recognizes as good behavior. For example:

Attacking or defending "owned" space

Attacking a freighter with a high-value load in order to make a fat profit from looting the wreck

A preemptive attack on a blackmailer or pirate

Faction War

...

Actually the first item in that list, being a core design principle and distinguishing characteristic of EVE, is enough on its own.

You missed out the most important reason and the only one that really matters : Because it's fun.

Blowing people up is fun, not just when it's consensual. A consensual fight is fun because you get to test your fit / ship against the other person's fit / ship, and you can also adjust aspects of the fight for training (and fun) purposes. A non-consensual fight is also fun, for the reasons listed above but also for more than just that. The non-consensual fight involves tracking, research and requires the aggressor to engineer the correct situation. The flip side is that the defender can also employ all kinds of tricks to avoid the dangerous situation coming to pass (fit a tank, take a different route or adjust activities for example).

You didn't answer my Chess analogy earlier on, i can only assume because it doesn't fit with your "waaaaah nasty griefers" monologue.

You can't really talk about "tells" and other such psychology since you quite clearly don't understand the subject matter. CCP uses various grief tactics you've spoken about to actively promote the game, so please tell us more about "being a core design principle and distinguishing characteristic of EVE".

Is your fun derived from having the person's pixels blow up in the game, or from his tearful reaction to you blowing up his pixels in the game. If you get more fun out of the second then it is highly likely that you are leaning towards being a griefer. I hope that gives you a little help as your tunnel vision was wonderous to see and read...

When the going gets tough the Gankers get their CSM rep to change mechanics in their favour.

EVE is 14 years old in a few weeks. It may be time to come to terms with the fact that non consensual PvP is part of the game.

I did try to avoid a "dictionary war", but it seems it was too much to hope for :(

This is just another bit of "PR" to try to obscure griefing behind normal game activities.

"Non-consensual PvP" and "griefing" are not synonyms. There are plenty of occasions for Non-consensual PvP that any EVE player recognizes as good behavior. For example:

Attacking or defending "owned" space

Attacking a freighter with a high-value load in order to make a fat profit from looting the wreck

A preemptive attack on a blackmailer or pirate

Faction War

...

Actually the first item in that list, being a core design principle and distinguishing characteristic of EVE, is enough on its own.

I might remind you that this discussion is in context of the op alluding to being "griefed" out of his nullsec space.

You got that wrong, he said nothing about being griefed out of null sec just that his corp was unable to keep their space, then his question was did Alpha clones make it easier for griefers and in my opinion the answer to that is no. Are you turning into a full on HTFU type who only takes in what he thinks he reads based on his perception of the person making the post?

Well, if that was the case, then the first paragraph is meaningless. I also understood it, as "We lost our space. With the introduction of Alphas, does this mean that it will be easier for people to just throw zerg accounts at us, thus making it even harder to hold space?"

If he was only asking about the general ability to grief with Alphas, then the post without the first paragraph would make more sense. There is really no reason for him to mention that he lost space in that scenario.

Anyway, it doesn't really matter. The answer is still "No" in both instances.

EVE is 14 years old in a few weeks. It may be time to come to terms with the fact that non consensual PvP is part of the game.

I did try to avoid a "dictionary war", but it seems it was too much to hope for :(

This is just another bit of "PR" to try to obscure griefing behind normal game activities.

"Non-consensual PvP" and "griefing" are not synonyms. There are plenty of occasions for Non-consensual PvP that any EVE player recognizes as good behavior. For example:

Attacking or defending "owned" space

Attacking a freighter with a high-value load in order to make a fat profit from looting the wreck

A preemptive attack on a blackmailer or pirate

Faction War

...

Actually the first item in that list, being a core design principle and distinguishing characteristic of EVE, is enough on its own.

I might remind you that this discussion is in context of the op alluding to being "griefed" out of his nullsec space.

You got that wrong, he said nothing about being griefed out of null sec just that his corp was unable to keep their space, then his question was did Alpha clones make it easier for griefers and in my opinion the answer to that is no. Are you turning into a full on HTFU type who only takes in what he thinks he reads based on his perception of the person making the post?

Well, if that was the case, then the first paragraph is meaningless. I also understood it, as "We lost our space. With the introduction of Alphas, does this mean that it will be easier for people to just throw zerg accounts at us, thus making it even harder to hold space?"

If he was only asking about the general ability to grief with Alphas, then the post without the first paragraph would make more sense. There is really no reason for him to mention that he lost space in that scenario.

Anyway, it doesn't really matter. The answer is still "No" in both instances.

Not meaningless at all, he was merely explaining why he was not currently playing Eve, nothing to do with the question itself about Alphas, go read it again, people making that connection are of course projecting their prejudices against anyone who is negative about griefing, which people of course read as being against ganking for some odd reason, but for me they are not one and the same.

When the going gets tough the Gankers get their CSM rep to change mechanics in their favour.

EVE is 14 years old in a few weeks. It may be time to come to terms with the fact that non consensual PvP is part of the game.

I did try to avoid a "dictionary war", but it seems it was too much to hope for :(

This is just another bit of "PR" to try to obscure griefing behind normal game activities.

"Non-consensual PvP" and "griefing" are not synonyms. There are plenty of occasions for Non-consensual PvP that any EVE player recognizes as good behavior. For example:

Attacking or defending "owned" space

Attacking a freighter with a high-value load in order to make a fat profit from looting the wreck

A preemptive attack on a blackmailer or pirate

Faction War

...

Actually the first item in that list, being a core design principle and distinguishing characteristic of EVE, is enough on its own.

You missed out the most important reason and the only one that really matters : Because it's fun.

Blowing people up is fun, not just when it's consensual. A consensual fight is fun because you get to test your fit / ship against the other person's fit / ship, and you can also adjust aspects of the fight for training (and fun) purposes. A non-consensual fight is also fun, for the reasons listed above but also for more than just that. The non-consensual fight involves tracking, research and requires the aggressor to engineer the correct situation. The flip side is that the defender can also employ all kinds of tricks to avoid the dangerous situation coming to pass (fit a tank, take a different route or adjust activities for example).

You didn't answer my Chess analogy earlier on, i can only assume because it doesn't fit with your "waaaaah nasty griefers" monologue.

You can't really talk about "tells" and other such psychology since you quite clearly don't understand the subject matter. CCP uses various grief tactics you've spoken about to actively promote the game, so please tell us more about "being a core design principle and distinguishing characteristic of EVE".

Is your fun derived from having the person's pixels blow up in the game, or from his tearful reaction to you blowing up his pixels in the game. If you get more fun out of the second then it is highly likely that you are leaning towards being a griefer. I hope that gives you a little help as your tunnel vision was wonderous to see and read...

Not really. Griefing has a specific definition which CCP has defined to cover certain specific and defined types of play. Chasing someone out of nullsec like the OP, for example, is intended gameplay regardless of the player motivations.

You can call players "griefers" all you want, but you do not and cannot really know what motivates them. Whether they shoot other players non-consensually purely because they gain satisfaction in dominating other players, or they want the other players stuff, or perhaps they have some other abstract reason to hunt other players against their will, it doesn't matter. Non-consensual PvP is intended and even desired game play as defined by CCP, so the reasons for the act are irrelevant, just like whether the motivation of the chess grandmaster to win is the tournament prize, the ego boost of winning or a desire to make the other guy feel bad doesn't make a difference: checkmating your opponent is intended and legal game play.

I know you understand this Dracvlad and are just in your 'forum PvP' mode, but you do a disservice to players who are new to Eve with your forum games. Whether another player explodes you because they want to make you sad or because they want something you have makes no difference - it is your responsibility in this game to protect your assets. Enabling newer players with your rhetoric to define themselves as victims and wrongly try to push this responsibility onto the aggressor or CCP helps no one. It is all intended game play.

Not meaningless at all, he was merely explaining why he was not currently playing Eve, nothing to do with the question itself about Alphas, go read it again, people making that connection are of course projecting their prejudices against anyone who is negative about griefing, which people of course read as being against ganking for some odd reason, but for me they are not one and the same.

Well, it's really not that clear and could really be both. To me, there is no reason to specify why he left in the first place. The question of whether Alphas make it easier to grief would be equally valid, without the knowledge that he got kicked out of his space, thus making the paragraph meaningless.

Anyway as said earlier, this argument doesn't really matter since the answer to the question in both contexts is still "No".

Is your fun derived from having the person's pixels blow up in the game, or from his tearful reaction to you blowing up his pixels in the game. If you get more fun out of the second then it is highly likely that you are leaning towards being a griefer. I hope that gives you a little help as your tunnel vision was wonderous to see and read...

Not really. Griefing has a specific definition which CCP has defined to cover certain specific and defined types of play. Chasing someone out of nullsec like the OP, for example, is intended gameplay regardless of the player motivations.

You can call players "griefers" all you want, but you do not and cannot really know what motivates them. Whether they shoot other players non-consensually purely because they gain satisfaction in dominating other players, or they want the other players stuff, or perhaps they have some other abstract reason to hunt other players against their will, it doesn't matter. Non-consensual PvP is intended and even desired game play as defined by CCP, so the reasons for the act are irrelevant, just like whether the motivation of the chess grandmaster to win is the tournament prize, the ego boost of winning or a desire to make the other guy feel bad doesn't make a difference: checkmating your opponent is intended and legal game play.

I know you understand this Dracvlad and are just in your 'forum PvP' mode, but you do a disservice to players who are new to Eve with your forum games. Whether another player explodes you because they want to make you sad or because they want something you have makes no difference - it is your responsibility in this game to protect your assets. Enabling newer players with your rhetoric to define themselves as victims and wrongly try to push this responsibility onto the aggressor or CCP helps no one. It is all intended game play.

I understand very well CCP's definition, and I repeat that the OP did not indicate he was griefed out of null sec.

I did not call people griefers, I merely defined how a player gets his fun and indicated that this may lean towards griefing, there is a lot more to add to that to become a griefer in terms of CCP's definition, not so much more for most other games. Nothing to do with dominating another player, and nothing wrong with ganking. In my reply to the OP I never used the word griefing, though I assumed he was thinking that ganking = griefing which is incorrect. My statement is that should a player lean more towards getting his fun from a cry than the fact of a ship blowing up means that he is leaning towards griefing, nothing definite there because I had my eye on CCP's definition.

Is it wrong to look at peoples motivations with a questioning eye, yesterday I put a bounty on someone who annoyed me for telling me this is intel in a channel, I enjoyed his upset, I griefed him, there you go, but not by CCP's definition. And I don't know where you get this idea that I don't think protecting yourself in Eve is your own responsibility, just yesterday I had a ganker whine at my paranoia, which was great for me.

When the going gets tough the Gankers get their CSM rep to change mechanics in their favour.

Not meaningless at all, he was merely explaining why he was not currently playing Eve, nothing to do with the question itself about Alphas, go read it again, people making that connection are of course projecting their prejudices against anyone who is negative about griefing, which people of course read as being against ganking for some odd reason, but for me they are not one and the same.

Well, it's really not that clear and could really be both. To me, there is no reason to specify why he left in the first place. The question of whether Alphas make it easier to grief would be equally valid, without the knowledge that he got kicked out of his space, thus making the paragraph meaningless.

Anyway as said earlier, this argument doesn't really matter since the answer to the question in both contexts is still "No".

I feel, this is just an argument for the sake of the argument.

It is that clear! He obviously did not leave due to griefing, just that his corp / alliance lost their space and it was not as much fun which is why he took a break.

Yes you could pick him up on him linking ganking as griefing and I had no reaction to people doing that, though I did sneer at the thread turning into a definition of griefing when it was really a simple yes no on the question and no was the answer. My issue was that certain players incorrectly tarred him with saying that he was griefed out of 0.0 when he never said that, which from my perspective is down to smear tactics at worst or at best an unconscious need to misrepresent anyone who has a negative attitude towards ganking of any shape or form.

When the going gets tough the Gankers get their CSM rep to change mechanics in their favour.

EVE is 14 years old in a few weeks. It may be time to come to terms with the fact that non consensual PvP is part of the game.

I did try to avoid a "dictionary war", but it seems it was too much to hope for :(

This is just another bit of "PR" to try to obscure griefing behind normal game activities.

"Non-consensual PvP" and "griefing" are not synonyms. There are plenty of occasions for Non-consensual PvP that any EVE player recognizes as good behavior. For example:

Attacking or defending "owned" space

Attacking a freighter with a high-value load in order to make a fat profit from looting the wreck

A preemptive attack on a blackmailer or pirate

Faction War

...

Actually the first item in that list, being a core design principle and distinguishing characteristic of EVE, is enough on its own.

You missed out the most important reason and the only one that really matters : Because it's fun.

Blowing people up is fun, not just when it's consensual. A consensual fight is fun because you get to test your fit / ship against the other person's fit / ship, and you can also adjust aspects of the fight for training (and fun) purposes. A non-consensual fight is also fun, for the reasons listed above but also for more than just that. The non-consensual fight involves tracking, research and requires the aggressor to engineer the correct situation. The flip side is that the defender can also employ all kinds of tricks to avoid the dangerous situation coming to pass (fit a tank, take a different route or adjust activities for example).

You didn't answer my Chess analogy earlier on, i can only assume because it doesn't fit with your "waaaaah nasty griefers" monologue.

You can't really talk about "tells" and other such psychology since you quite clearly don't understand the subject matter. CCP uses various grief tactics you've spoken about to actively promote the game, so please tell us more about "being a core design principle and distinguishing characteristic of EVE".

Is your fun derived from having the person's pixels blow up in the game, or from his tearful reaction to you blowing up his pixels in the game. If you get more fun out of the second then it is highly likely that you are leaning towards being a griefer. I hope that gives you a little help as your tunnel vision was wonderous to see and read...

As i clearly explained (and you say i have tunnel vision) the fun is mostly in the tactics and the chase. In fact i explained it so clearly i think it's fairly obvious you either didn't read my post or worse didn't understand the words i typed . In fact, you even quoted the part where i explained your current question as backup for asking the current question .

Here i'll quote it for you again, try to imagine i'm saying it real slowly

"A consensual fight is fun because you get to test your fit / ship against the other person's fit / ship, and you can also adjust aspects of the fight for training (and fun) purposes. A non-consensual fight is also fun, for the reasons listed above but also for more than just that. The non-consensual fight involves tracking, research and requires the aggressor to engineer the correct situation. The flip side is that the defender can also employ all kinds of tricks to avoid the dangerous situation coming to pass (fit a tank, take a different route or adjust activities for example)."

Seriously just sit down before you hurt yourself. (or send me some more EvE-Mails about how you don't care what the nasty forum people think of you, saying it so many times it kinda made me wonder about your sanity).

As i clearly explained (and you say i have tunnel vision) the fun is mostly in the tactics and the chase. In fact i explained it so clearly i think it's fairly obvious you either didn't read my post or worse didn't understand the words i typed . In fact, you even quoted the part where i explained your current question as backup for asking the current question .

Here i'll quote it for you again, try to imagine i'm saying it real slowly

"A consensual fight is fun because you get to test your fit / ship against the other person's fit / ship, and you can also adjust aspects of the fight for training (and fun) purposes. A non-consensual fight is also fun, for the reasons listed above but also for more than just that. The non-consensual fight involves tracking, research and requires the aggressor to engineer the correct situation. The flip side is that the defender can also employ all kinds of tricks to avoid the dangerous situation coming to pass (fit a tank, take a different route or adjust activities for example)."

Seriously just sit down before you hurt yourself. (or send me some more EvE-Mails about how you don't care what the nasty forum people think of you, saying it so many times it kinda made me wonder about your sanity).

Each to their own ay Drac

You seem to have got a bit salty over my reply, but really I don't care what people in a forum think of me, it is called self-confidence and one mail where I said that. I know you are self-confident and I would not define you as a griefer, end story, my issue with your post is that you were not taking into account the tears side of things, aka the bonus room as being the final end result. If you want to ignore that then I will think less of you, but that hardly matters to you does it?

You can say something slowly that I totally u n d e r s t a n d..., but that was not he point I was making.

When the going gets tough the Gankers get their CSM rep to change mechanics in their favour.

'Space sims like Eve Online and Elite: Dangerous have incorporated activities typically considered griefing as part of the gameplay mechanism. Corporate spying, theft, scams, gate-camping, and PVP on non-PVP players are all part of their gaming experience.'

Basically, if it's not an act that breaks the TOS agreement for gameplay, it's generally not griefing. Tired of that word being thrown around so casually to describe anything that causes buttrash.

*mic drop*

You can always find a definition that suits you.

This is why I said "To the extent it's worth trying to define griefing"as the first words of my post.

An observation: people who've been behaving badly their whole lives are by far the best at rationalizing and justifying bad behavior, because they've had so much practice.

Anyway I'm certainly not trying to change your opinion. But there are all kinds of players in EVE - the question is what proportion of them don't think it's a good idea to drive away new players.

People using the words griefer/griefing on these forums should be banned for 30 days first offense. After that permanently.

"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek

'Space sims like Eve Online and Elite: Dangerous have incorporated activities typically considered griefing as part of the gameplay mechanism. Corporate spying, theft, scams, gate-camping, and PVP on non-PVP players are all part of their gaming experience.'

Basically, if it's not an act that breaks the TOS agreement for gameplay, it's generally not griefing. Tired of that word being thrown around so casually to describe anything that causes buttrash.

*mic drop*

You can always find a definition that suits you.

This is why I said "To the extent it's worth trying to define griefing"as the first words of my post.

An observation: people who've been behaving badly their whole lives are by far the best at rationalizing and justifying bad behavior, because they've had so much practice.

Anyway I'm certainly not trying to change your opinion. But there are all kinds of players in EVE - the question is what proportion of them don't think it's a good idea to drive away new players.

Is it griefing to beat someone at Chess?

Should you as a Chess player, allow a newer Chess player to beat you so as to make him feel good at Chess and maybe keep playing Chess, or do you play him honestly and accept that if he can't handle losing at Chess he likely won't be playing Chess for long anyway?

Stop throwing lame arguments about keeping vs driving away new players. EvE is all about getting griefed / abused / tricked and beaten up. It's like the wild west in space and that's exactly how it's supposed to be. New players who are driven away by this kind of gameplay quite literally are not right for the game, and i don't mean that in some harsh or flamey way.

The way you talk about this subject is kind of butt-hurt and i feel like you would define anything that negatively affected your freedom to do what you want as griefing, which it isn't.

No, but the better chess player is clearly a moral degenerate in real life.

[/sarcasm]

"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek

You keep using that word again.I do not think it means what you think it does.

This is not minecraft. This is not WoW.This is not Hello Kitty in Space... yet.

CCP determines what griefing is in their game. Not you. Not me.

You consent to PVP by undocking. It's implicit. Someone can do you harm if they wish to. No space knights honorably duelling here, just back alley knife fights and bar-room brawls.Fair fights only happen by accident generally.

Hell, if you do nothing but station trading you even PvP while docked if you count competition as PvP.

Is it griefing if I under cut your prices by more than 10%?

"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek

Well, 0.1 isk wars could be harassment. It's regionwide, which is way more than just a constellation or a few systems.

Classic Teckos diversion post, you should ignore him like I have. I only get to see his rubbish if people quote it, which thankfully is not often. Somehow in Tecko's mind playing games in the market is the same as Erotica's teamspeak bonus room, which is why when people talk about gamking balance they jump in and say you want no PvP, odd people I must say...

When the going gets tough the Gankers get their CSM rep to change mechanics in their favour.

EVE is 14 years old in a few weeks. It may be time to come to terms with the fact that non consensual PvP is part of the game.

I did try to avoid a "dictionary war", but it seems it was too much to hope for :(

This is just another bit of "PR" to try to obscure griefing behind normal game activities.

"Non-consensual PvP" and "griefing" are not synonyms. There are plenty of occasions for Non-consensual PvP that any EVE player recognizes as good behavior. For example:

Attacking or defending "owned" space

Attacking a freighter with a high-value load in order to make a fat profit from looting the wreck

A preemptive attack on a blackmailer or pirate

Faction War

...

Actually the first item in that list, being a core design principle and distinguishing characteristic of EVE, is enough on its own.

I might remind you that this discussion is in context of the op alluding to being "griefed" out of his nullsec space.

You got that wrong, he said nothing about being griefed out of null sec just that his corp was unable to keep their space, then his question was did Alpha clones make it easier for griefers and in my opinion the answer to that is no. Are you turning into a full on HTFU type who only takes in what he thinks he reads based on his perception of the person making the post?

Do you know what "alluding" means? Let me give you an example:

"Has anyone seen Dracvlad around lately? I have to collect my kids from school because I'm scared of what will happen to them if I let them walk home alone"

In the narrowest sense, these are two unlinked sentences. However, taken in context (another word I used, which literally means "written next to"), the underlying meaning is clear.

"Just remember later that I warned against any change to jump ranges or fatigue. You earned whats coming."

You got that wrong, he said nothing about being griefed out of null sec just that his corp was unable to keep their space, then his question was did Alpha clones make it easier for griefers and in my opinion the answer to that is no. Are you turning into a full on HTFU type who only takes in what he thinks he reads based on his perception of the person making the post?

Do you know what "alluding" means? Let me give you an example:

"Has anyone seen Dracvlad around lately? I have to collect my kids from school because I'm scared of what will happen to them if I let them walk home alone"

In the narrowest sense, these are two unlinked sentences. However, taken in context (another word I used, which literally means "written next to"), the underlying meaning is clear.

So inferring that I am some sort of pedo, I won't report you though, just laugh at it as it is pretty feeble, but no his statements were two distinct statements as we all know null sec is completely different to hisec and alluding as you put it was only exposing your own prejudices.

When the going gets tough the Gankers get their CSM rep to change mechanics in their favour.

EVE is 14 years old in a few weeks. It may be time to come to terms with the fact that non consensual PvP is part of the game.

I did try to avoid a "dictionary war", but it seems it was too much to hope for :(

This is just another bit of "PR" to try to obscure griefing behind normal game activities.

"Non-consensual PvP" and "griefing" are not synonyms. There are plenty of occasions for Non-consensual PvP that any EVE player recognizes as good behavior. For example:

Attacking or defending "owned" space

Attacking a freighter with a high-value load in order to make a fat profit from looting the wreck

A preemptive attack on a blackmailer or pirate

Faction War

...

Actually the first item in that list, being a core design principle and distinguishing characteristic of EVE, is enough on its own.

I might remind you that this discussion is in context of the op alluding to being "griefed" out of his nullsec space.

You got that wrong, he said nothing about being griefed out of null sec just that his corp was unable to keep their space, then his question was did Alpha clones make it easier for griefers and in my opinion the answer to that is no. Are you turning into a full on HTFU type who only takes in what he thinks he reads based on his perception of the person making the post?

Do you know what "alluding" means? Let me give you an example:

"Has anyone seen Dracvlad around lately? I have to collect my kids from school because I'm scared of what will happen to them if I let them walk home alone"

In the narrowest sense, these are two unlinked sentences. However, taken in context (another word I used, which literally means "written next to"), the underlying meaning is clear.

You are obviously jealous of my mans good lucks and dry witty personality to make such baseless accusations, he certainly can't be anywhere near your kids, if they are indeed yours, because you are in null and he is in hisec and I hardly let him out of my sight, because he is just so good to look at.

You are obviously jealous of my mans good lucks and dry witty personality to make such baseless accusations, he certainly can't be anywhere near your kids, if they are indeed yours, because you are in null and he is in hisec and I hardly let him out of my sight, because he is just so good to look at.

Ahem, thank you my darling for standing up for me, but it is hardly necessary, he is a member of the church of the HTFU and this type of baseless alluding is typical of them.

When the going gets tough the Gankers get their CSM rep to change mechanics in their favour.

COPYRIGHT NOTICEEVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.